Energy Security

[sptrawler]

It also makes the set in stone 43% reduction in carbon by 2030 look more distant.
I certainly wish the politicians would just butt out and let the experts sort it in an orderly manner, rather than telling the experts how to do it.
All it does is put unnecessary pressures on everyone involved, which leads to mistakes, cost overruns and time blowouts, it also gives the audience an expectation that it will be done by a certain time, which adds even more pressure.
This is all going to end up a big mess IMO, it is too critical a service, to have mistakes made or shortcuts taken, to meet unrealistic goals.

It does highlight how shaky the whole structure is, when one old worn out power station has to be kept going, because unless a pumped hydro facility is built, the system is in trouble.
That says a lot IMO.

 

[Smurf1976]

In that case maybe the Fed/State govt's should take over the coal stations and keep them running or pay AGL or whoever to do that.

The big problem with Liddell is that quite simply it's stuffed.

Wallerawang C and Munmorah would've been much better candidates to retain but both have now been demolished so no going back there.

Munmorah was old, 1967, but had the advantage of two (of four) 350MW units having been mothballed since about 1990 after which they never ran again. So it actually had 2 x 350 MW that were in great shape with ~25 years' life left in them. The only thing they lacked being any form of pollution controls to stop dust going up the stack but that could've been retrofitted as it was for the other two at the same station.

Wallerawang C was technically similar to Liddell but newer, the units being commissioned in 1976 and 1980 and was in far better shape. And yes it had reasonable emission controls, no issue there. Plant was 2 x 500MW each fully independent and even better, one of them was optimised in the original design for cyclic operation.

Both were in NSW.

Another in NSW is Redbank. This one's small, 151MW, but it's intact and could be put back into service. Only barriers there to my knowledge are political and economic.

Also Northern Power Station in SA, 2 x 273MW, was in great shape. That's the one that was spectacularly blown up with explosives so needless to say that ain't coming back. Not the most imaginatively named power station ever built but technically it was pretty robust with very few problems throughout its life and it could've done some more years. And yes there's still coal left in the mine - going deeper added to the cost but not hugely so and it beats sitting in the dark.

 

[sptrawler]

IMO @Smurf1976 it shows how contradictory the narrative is from the various sources, it wasn't long ago that many who are now in power were saying Snowy 2.0 and Kurri Kurri aren't required and would be white elephants.They were also saying Eraring power station will shut by 2025.

Australia’s largest coal-fired power station, Eraring, to close in 2025, seven years early

Origin Energy says the 2,880MW black-coal generator in NSW is not well-suited to rapidly changing conditions in the national electricity market

www.theguardian.com

Now we have them saying that because Snowy 2.0 is delayed by 2 years, the closure of Eraring will have to be delayed, obviously someone is telling porkies, or everything is on very shaky ground IMO.
Either Snowy 2.0 is absolutely critical, or the system is so shaky it can't afford to lose a 40year old coal fired station, which says that reducing the emissions to the target in 6.5 years is bordering on ridiculous.
What makes it even more farcical, is that Eraring is now owned by the 'Green' company, how weird is that. ?

It would be good if someone in Government actually explained the plan and how it is going to be achieved IMO.

 

[sptrawler]

My guess, Chris goes under the bus, "look we put our best and brightest in charge, what more could we do"??

 

[Smurf1976]

It would be good if someone in Government actually explained the plan and how it is going to be achieved IMO.

 

[Smurf1976]

Either Snowy 2.0 is absolutely critical, or the system is so shaky it can't afford to lose a 40year old coal fired station

Chart of NSW supply for the past 7 days.

Purple = import from Qld + Vic
Black = coal
Orange = gas
Blue = hydro
Green = wind
Yellow = solar

There's too little of them to be readily visible on the chart but light blue is batteries and red is diesel. There's a tiny bit there.

Take Eraring out and the lights go out that's that's a given. It's 100% certain under present circumstances.

Bearing in mind that Eraring isn't the oldest operating coal plant in NSW given Vales Point B is older (1979) and in worse shape. Capacity is 2 x 660 MW.

I do think there'll be a crisis before all this is resolved. It's not a given but it's quite a likely outcome in my view.

 

[sptrawler]

IMO @Smurf1976 it shows how contradictory the narrative is from the various sources, it wasn't long ago that many who are now in power were saying Snowy 2.0 and Kurri Kurri aren't required and would be white elephants.They were also saying Eraring power station will shut by 2025.

Australia’s largest coal-fired power station, Eraring, to close in 2025, seven years early

Origin Energy says the 2,880MW black-coal generator in NSW is not well-suited to rapidly changing conditions in the national electricity market

www.theguardian.com

Now we have them saying that because Snowy 2.0 is delayed by 2 years, the closure of Eraring will have to be delayed, obviously someone is telling porkies, or everything is on very shaky ground IMO.
Either Snowy 2.0 is absolutely critical, or the system is so shaky it can't afford to lose a 40year old coal fired station, which says that reducing the emissions to the target in 6.5 years is bordering on ridiculous.
What makes it even more farcical, is that Eraring is now owned by the 'Green' company, how weird is that. ?

It would be good if someone in Government actually explained the plan and how it is going to be achieved IMO.

Well it does sound like the dirty washing is going to hung out to dry, at last, someone is going to be in manure sooner or later. ?
It's all someone else's fault the catch cry will be, when in reality the 2030 target is just a great big brain fart IMO, as has been said over and over.
This is going to get very ugly IMO, there is a lot of plant to be retired in the very near future and not much is going in to replace it.
I think the money printing presses will be rolled out and fired up, a lot of money will be thrown down the Swanee very soon, to try and stop the inevitable IMO.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05...e-over-bull****-green-energy-target/102305062

From the article:

Paul Broad, who ran Snowy Hydro until resigning shortly after Labor won office last year, launched an extraordinary attack against what he said were flawed plans to decarbonise the power system.

In an interview on commercial radio station 2GB, Mr Broad said the government would be unable to meet the target of Australia producing 82 per cent of its electricity supplies from renewable sources by 2030.

The outburst came just a day after it emerged that a project Mr Broad used to oversee — the massive Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro plant — had been hit by further cost and time blowouts.

The 72-year-old also took aim at the government's renewable energy plans, labelling them as overly ambitious and unrealistic while claiming they would risk the lights going out.

He cited the delays to Snowy 2.0, saying they were evidence of the difficulty of building enough green energy to replace retiring coal-fired capacity while simultaneously keeping up with increases in demand for electricity.

Transition to take '80, not eight years'​

"The notion that you're going to have 80 per cent renewables in our system by 2030 is, to use the vernacular, bull****," Mr Broad said.
"You can't. This transition, if it ever occurs, it will take 80 years, not eight.

"There are massive changes that need to occur.

"And I'm deeply concerned about the rush, the notion that somehow this is all magic … we'll close a big base-load power plant that's kept our lights on for yours and my life … and there are all these alternatives out there.

"Well, it's not. I can be absolutely, 100 per cent certain it's not available."

 

[Ferret]

I wish batteries weren't so expensive. I'd be buying one now in preparation for what's coming in a few years...

 

[Knobby22]

Well it does sound like the dirty washing is going to hung out to dry, at last, someone is going to be in manure sooner or later. ?
It's all someone else's fault the catch cry will be, when in reality the 2030 target is just a great big brain fart IMO, as has been said over and over.
This is going to get very ugly IMO, there is a lot of plant to be retired in the very near future and not much is going in to replace it.
I think the money printing presses will be rolled out and fired up, a lot of money will be thrown down the Swanee very soon, to try and stop the inevitable IMO.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05...e-over-bull****-green-energy-target/102305062

From the article:

Paul Broad, who ran Snowy Hydro until resigning shortly after Labor won office last year, launched an extraordinary attack against what he said were flawed plans to decarbonise the power system.

In an interview on commercial radio station 2GB, Mr Broad said the government would be unable to meet the target of Australia producing 82 per cent of its electricity supplies from renewable sources by 2030.

The outburst came just a day after it emerged that a project Mr Broad used to oversee — the massive Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro plant — had been hit by further cost and time blowouts.

The 72-year-old also took aim at the government's renewable energy plans, labelling them as overly ambitious and unrealistic while claiming they would risk the lights going out.

He cited the delays to Snowy 2.0, saying they were evidence of the difficulty of building enough green energy to replace retiring coal-fired capacity while simultaneously keeping up with increases in demand for electricity.

Transition to take '80, not eight years'​

"The notion that you're going to have 80 per cent renewables in our system by 2030 is, to use the vernacular, bull****," Mr Broad said.
"You can't. This transition, if it ever occurs, it will take 80 years, not eight.

"There are massive changes that need to occur.

"And I'm deeply concerned about the rush, the notion that somehow this is all magic … we'll close a big base-load power plant that's kept our lights on for yours and my life … and there are all these alternatives out there.

"Well, it's not. I can be absolutely, 100 per cent certain it's not available."

That guy ran the build and it was already a year behind when he resigned yet he kept it secret from the Australian people.

He has very little credibility and a high level of incompetence. No wonder he resigned when he could see he would be caught out.

 

[sptrawler]

That guy ran the build and it was already a year behind when he resigned yet he kept it secret from the Australian people.

He has very little credibility and a high level of incompetence. No wonder he resigned when he could see he would be caught out.

Well there is one thing for sure, the next 6 years aren't going to be boring in the electricity industry.

 

[SirRumpole]

Well there is one thing for sure, the next 6 years aren't going to be boring in the electricity industry.

Was that a little pointed considering the lack of progress of Snowy Hydro's boring machine ?

Like it if it was.

 

[Smurf1976]

A lot of the issue here comes down to the realities of getting big things built and that anything underground always involves some element of risk that geology isn't as expected.

Looking to the past, the various state electricity authorities did have a pretty impressive rolling construction program but there's a key to making that work - everyone doing everything all at once. Investigation people were always investigating and keeping well ahead of design people who were always designing, following on were construction and following them were commissioning engineers. So you'd have a lot of different projects all at various stages - some being investigated, others being designed in detail, some being built, some being tested and put into operation.

That "production line" approach is how the utilities kept up such a pace of new plant construction. People with specialist expertise who moved from one thing to the next and that even reflected in the actual construction - it was a case of building multiple things at once, at different stages. It wasn't a case of build one then build the next as that's too inefficient.

The whole thing had a lot in common with car manufacturing for example. Each person keep doing the same thing and at the end of the line is a constant stream of finished cars being completed. Most of those involved only saw a piece of the process however.

Go back to that approach and it could be done a lot more rapidly than 80 years. It'll still take years, but not 80 or anywhere close to that.

As a random example of how that works, I'll go back 55 years to 1968 and note what was happening at the time:

SA:

Closing = Osborne A station, in service since 1923 and now at end of life.

Commissioning = Second unit at Torrens Island A station (oil-fired steam) and official opening (ribbon cutting) of the station.

Construction = Units 3 & 4 at Torrens Island A (oil / gas fired steam).

Queued for Construction = Dry Creek (gas turbines).

Planning & Design = Gas conversion of Torrens Island A existing plant once the pipeline made gas available (1969). Plus to build a complete new Torrens Island B station and separate gas turbines at a site to be determined (ultimately built a Snuggery).

Tasmania:

Commissioning = Repulse, Cluny and Rowallan hydro stations. Plus the temporary gas turbines two at Bell Bay and one at Macquarie Point (Hobart).

Construction = Works underway on Lemonthyme, Devils Gate, Cethana, Wilmot, Paloona and Fisher (all hydro).

Queued for construction = Early works commencing on Gordon and Bell Bay (the latter being oil-fired steam, all others hydro) and ramping up as current projects were completed.

Planning & Design = Mackintosh, Bastyan, Reece (all hydro) and future projects under investigation.

Victoria:

Closing = Yallourn A after 44 years' service (coal)

Commissioning = 5th unit at Hazelwood power station (coal).

Construction = Units 6, 7 & 8 at Hazelwood. Works underway on units 1 & 2 at Yallourn W (coal).

Queued for construction = Units 3 & 4 at Yallourn W to be built when required (actual completion 1981).

Planning & Design = Newport D (oil / gas-fired steam) plus separately Loy Yang (coal).

And so on. Same for the other states, they all had a rolling program of investigating, designing, planning, constructing and commissioning new plant. That's what you need when individual projects take 7 - 10 years and you need to complete one every year, you do it by overlapping the stages in a production line manner such that there's constant work on each stage moving from project to project, and a regular set of new plant going into service.

Go back and look at the historic details and 10 year projects were completed every year. That's how they did it. In the decade to 1962, Victoria actually commissioned a new generating unit every 93 days on average and kept that pace up for the full decade - overlapping production line construction is how they did it. For the record the coal and oil plant built at that time is all gone now but the hydro they built is still in use today.

OK, so today isn't the 1960's but the same principles apply. It doesn't take a century to build ten things which each take ten years. No, you overlap them and the whole lot can then be done in about 20 years. That's how it was actually done historically.

A big part of the problem is the debate at the political and media level is dominated not simply by people who can't do it themselves but by people who've no idea how such things actually were done in the past. The idea that the one authority would have multiple project all at various stages, and that doing so was the actual key to success, is a concept they just don't grasp.

 

[Smurf1976]

For anyone who doubts it, there's no question that wind and solar do work.

Trouble is, they don't work constantly which means there's a need to store it when it's there for use when it isn't.

Past 72 hours in SA shows the problem very clearly in the following chart:

Yellow = Solar
Green = Wind
Blue = Batteries
Orange = Gas
Red = Diesel
Purple = Supply from Victoria
Below zero line = battery charging and export from SA to Victoria.

So at 4:30pm on 3rd of May we had more than enough wind and solar to run the whole state with some to spare.

Then the wind died and supply has been primarily from gas and interstate. So if we're going to make wind and solar work, the key is interstate transmission and storage projects (notably hydro). Otherwise, gas and diesel are here to stay as backup.

 

[SirRumpole]

Matt Canavan reckons "lack of power" notices were related top the closure of Liddell.

Others have a different opinion.

Are 'lack of power' alerts coming 'thick and fast' after the Liddell closure as Matt Canavan said?

Nationals senator Matt Canavan has sought to link recent AEMO energy alerts with the closure of Liddell power station. But is there a link?

www.abc.net.au

 

[SirRumpole]

A lot of the issue here comes down to the realities of getting big things built and that anything underground always involves some element of risk that geology isn't as expected.

Looking to the past, the various state electricity authorities did have a pretty impressive rolling construction program but there's a key to making that work - everyone doing everything all at once. Investigation people were always investigating and keeping well ahead of design people who were always designing, following on were construction and following them were commissioning engineers. So you'd have a lot of different projects all at various stages - some being investigated, others being designed in detail, some being built, some being tested and put into operation.

That "production line" approach is how the utilities kept up such a pace of new plant construction. People with specialist expertise who moved from one thing to the next and that even reflected in the actual construction - it was a case of building multiple things at once, at different stages. It wasn't a case of build one then build the next as that's too inefficient.

The whole thing had a lot in common with car manufacturing for example. Each person keep doing the same thing and at the end of the line is a constant stream of finished cars being completed. Most of those involved only saw a piece of the process however.

Go back to that approach and it could be done a lot more rapidly than 80 years. It'll still take years, but not 80 or anywhere close to that.

As a random example of how that works, I'll go back 55 years to 1968 and note what was happening at the time:

SA:

Closing = Osborne A station, in service since 1923 and now at end of life.

Commissioning = Second unit at Torrens Island A station (oil-fired steam) and official opening (ribbon cutting) of the station.

Construction = Units 3 & 4 at Torrens Island A (oil / gas fired steam).

Queued for Construction = Dry Creek (gas turbines).

Planning & Design = Gas conversion of Torrens Island A existing plant once the pipeline made gas available (1969). Plus to build a complete new Torrens Island B station and separate gas turbines at a site to be determined (ultimately built a Snuggery).

Tasmania:

Commissioning = Repulse, Cluny and Rowallan hydro stations. Plus the temporary gas turbines two at Bell Bay and one at Macquarie Point (Hobart).

Construction = Works underway on Lemonthyme, Devils Gate, Cethana, Wilmot, Paloona and Fisher (all hydro).

Queued for construction = Early works commencing on Gordon and Bell Bay (the latter being oil-fired steam, all others hydro) and ramping up as current projects were completed.

Planning & Design = Mackintosh, Bastyan, Reece (all hydro) and future projects under investigation.

Victoria:

Closing = Yallourn A after 44 years' service (coal)

Commissioning = 5th unit at Hazelwood power station (coal).

Construction = Units 6, 7 & 8 at Hazelwood. Works underway on units 1 & 2 at Yallourn W (coal).

Queued for construction = Units 3 & 4 at Yallourn W to be built when required (actual completion 1981).

Planning & Design = Newport D (oil / gas-fired steam) plus separately Loy Yang (coal).

And so on. Same for the other states, they all had a rolling program of investigating, designing, planning, constructing and commissioning new plant. That's what you need when individual projects take 7 - 10 years and you need to complete one every year, you do it by overlapping the stages in a production line manner such that there's constant work on each stage moving from project to project, and a regular set of new plant going into service.

Go back and look at the historic details and 10 year projects were completed every year. That's how they did it. In the decade to 1962, Victoria actually commissioned a new generating unit every 93 days on average and kept that pace up for the full decade - overlapping production line construction is how they did it. For the record the coal and oil plant built at that time is all gone now but the hydro they built is still in use today.

OK, so today isn't the 1960's but the same principles apply. It doesn't take a century to build ten things which each take ten years. No, you overlap them and the whole lot can then be done in about 20 years. That's how it was actually done historically.

A big part of the problem is the debate at the political and media level is dominated not simply by people who can't do it themselves but by people who've no idea how such things actually were done in the past. The idea that the one authority would have multiple project all at various stages, and that doing so was the actual key to success, is a concept they just don't grasp.

Having a consistent and ongoing plan seems to be more viable in government organisations where cost and competition is less of a worry.

Probably a large private operation could do it if they were a monopoly but the way the industry is fracturing that doesn't seem likely to me.

What are other's views ?

 

[sptrawler]

Having a consistent and ongoing plan seems to be more viable in government organisations where cost and competition is less of a worry.

Probably a large private operation could do it if they were a monopoly but the way the industry is fracturing that doesn't seem likely to me.

What are other's views ?

Having said that Rumpy, even the Govt can be all over the place when it comes to planning and most of it is due to appeasing a news hungry media feeding a drama hungry mob.

Just look at the state the Govt is getting itself into at the moment, they need gas to mitigate the removal of coal fired generation during the transition period, which we all know will take at least 20-40 years depending on resources to carry it out.

Right so we will need gas for a long time yet, so the Govt first puts caps on what the gas companies can charge for it, now it sounds like the media is pushing for extra taxes on it, so why would the gas companies look for more here? Which then leads to even more acute shortages, it sounds like the media tail is wagging the Govt dog at the moment, as I've said this is all heading toward a massive cliff.

The problem with putting on super profits taxes, because there is a spike in the price of the commodity, due you then give the company a tax break when there is a slump in the sector. It is just another weird brain fart that shows commodities should be taxed on volume, not on profits IMO. Another massive knee jerk reaction, that is going to backfire yet again.

Bowen really needs to take a breath or Chalmers isn't listening to him, but one way or another, this is starting to look like a massive stuff up that will send Labor back to the bench if they aren't very, very careful.

 

[SirRumpole]

Having said that Rumpy, even the Govt can be all over the place when it comes to planning and most of it is due to appeasing a news hungry media feeding a drama hungry mob.

Just look at the state the Govt is getting itself into at the moment, they need gas to mitigate the removal of coal fired generation during the transition period, which we all know will take at least 20-40 years depending on resources to carry it out.

Right so we will need gas for a long time yet, so the Govt first puts caps on what the gas companies can charge for it, now it sounds like the media is pushing for extra taxes on it, so why would the gas companies look for more here? Which then leads to even more acute shortages, it sounds like the media tail is wagging the Govt dog at the moment, as I've said this is all heading toward a massive cliff.

The problem with putting on super profits taxes, because there is a spike in the price of the commodity, due you then give the company a tax break when there is a slump in the sector. It is just another weird brain fart that shows commodities should be taxed on volume, not on profits IMO. Another massive knee jerk reaction, that is going to backfire yet again.

Bowen really needs to take a breath or Chalmers isn't listening to him, but one way or another, this is starting to look like a massive stuff up that will send Labor back to the bench if they aren't very, very careful.

True, but my general feeling is that things were a lot simpler and cheaper when governments owned the lot, ie generation, transmission and retailing. They could make a loss on one aspect and profits on the others and come out even.

As for super profits taxes, I don't like the mechanism. There should just be a permanent export tax on all resources based on market spot prices, and things would even out over time.

 

[sptrawler]

True, but my general feeling is that things were a lot simpler and cheaper when governments owned the lot, ie generation, transmission and retailing. They could make a loss on one aspect and profits on the others and come out even.

As for super profits taxes, I don't like the mechanism. There should just be a permanent export tax on all resources based on market spot prices, and things would even out over time.

We both agree on that, but the problem is they don't own it and they have to deal with the realities.

If when the agreements for the companies to proceed to develop resources conditions are set in place, it is very difficult to change them, because the financial investment was made on the original risk Vs reward basis.
If the Govt wants to change how they tax resource companies, they need to make it on future developments e.g the undeveloped gas reserves off the West coast, that would make a lot of sense and set a new precedent that resource companies can use for their due diligence.

Like I said this is all just getting messier and messier IMO and really it is just to appease the media and the mob, by trying to rush it.
Just crazy sht, once the electrical system becomes a mess, we will look like cowboys on the world stage and that will have huge ramifications for future investment and our fiscal system in general.
Just my two cents worth.

 

[Sean K]

Well it does sound like the dirty washing is going to hung out to dry, at last, someone is going to be in manure sooner or later. ?
It's all someone else's fault the catch cry will be, when in reality the 2030 target is just a great big brain fart IMO, as has been said over and over.
This is going to get very ugly IMO, there is a lot of plant to be retired in the very near future and not much is going in to replace it.
I think the money printing presses will be rolled out and fired up, a lot of money will be thrown down the Swanee very soon, to try and stop the inevitable IMO.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05...e-over-bull****-green-energy-target/102305062

From the article:

Paul Broad, who ran Snowy Hydro until resigning shortly after Labor won office last year, launched an extraordinary attack against what he said were flawed plans to decarbonise the power system.

In an interview on commercial radio station 2GB, Mr Broad said the government would be unable to meet the target of Australia producing 82 per cent of its electricity supplies from renewable sources by 2030.

The outburst came just a day after it emerged that a project Mr Broad used to oversee — the massive Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro plant — had been hit by further cost and time blowouts.

The 72-year-old also took aim at the government's renewable energy plans, labelling them as overly ambitious and unrealistic while claiming they would risk the lights going out.

He cited the delays to Snowy 2.0, saying they were evidence of the difficulty of building enough green energy to replace retiring coal-fired capacity while simultaneously keeping up with increases in demand for electricity.

Transition to take '80, not eight years'​

"The notion that you're going to have 80 per cent renewables in our system by 2030 is, to use the vernacular, bull****," Mr Broad said.
"You can't. This transition, if it ever occurs, it will take 80 years, not eight.

"There are massive changes that need to occur.

"And I'm deeply concerned about the rush, the notion that somehow this is all magic … we'll close a big base-load power plant that's kept our lights on for yours and my life … and there are all these alternatives out there.

"Well, it's not. I can be absolutely, 100 per cent certain it's not available."

If the Liberals weren't so frigging bad, it's hard to see Labor holding votes when the lights go out in 2025.

 

[Sean K]

For anyone who doubts it, there's no question that wind and solar do work.

Trouble is, they don't work constantly which means there's a need to store it when it's there for use when it isn't.

Past 72 hours in SA shows the problem very clearly in the following chart:

Yellow = Solar
Green = Wind
Blue = Batteries
Orange = Gas
Red = Diesel
Purple = Supply from Victoria
Below zero line = battery charging and export from SA to Victoria.

View attachment 156647

So at 4:30pm on 3rd of May we had more than enough wind and solar to run the whole state with some to spare.

Then the wind died and supply has been primarily from gas and interstate. So if we're going to make wind and solar work, the key is interstate transmission and storage projects (notably hydro). Otherwise, gas and diesel are here to stay as backup.

Those batteries look as useful as ts on a bull.