Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[Smurf1976]

To put the previous post into perspective, roughly 1100 MWh of large scale solar output lost in SA today and about a tenth as much went into battery charging.

So scaling up the "big" batteries, all of them collectively, ten fold would have sorted it for today but not everyday so they need to be bigger than that.

Then there's wind curtailment and I haven't even tried to work that out other than to say it's significant and there was some today also.

Market's there right now if someone wants to get into it. Trouble is, there's no fortune to be made in doing so indeed simply breaking even over the full 15 year lifecycle with batteries is far from certain.

The battery I've got at home wasn't installed to make a profit and it's unlikely to do so. Call it a privately funded experiment if you like, I wanted a battery so I bought a battery, but energy arbitrage alone won't repay the cost even at a 0% rate of return and it's much the same for large scale installations. Any profit comes about by ancillary services, backup power, avoiding network costs, assigning some significant value to the public relations side of it as a marketing exercise and so on not from the actual energy being stored.

Nothing stopping anyone having a go at it though if they've got the money and no pressing need to get a return on it so can take a risk that it may or may not work out financially.

 

[rederob]

Having your generation go to waste is pretty good incentive unless you've managed to get someone else to pay for it even when it's not physically delivered.

Begs the question of having your battery storage also go to waste, does it not? So if renewables are not incentivised, why add the significant extra expense of a battery?
At least in Europe they worked it out.
We all know there is a big problem ahead this summer, let alone in the next 5-10 years.
The private sector needs policy clarity if it is going to invest the billions necessary to meet the looming demand gap, and 2019 has been more of the same inaction.

 

[Smurf1976]

We all know there is a big problem ahead this summer, let alone in the next 5-10 years.

Yep - it's one of those things where nobody can say for sure that the bomb goes off this summer but sooner or later it'll end in tears.

Not enough capacity and a significant amount of what does exist is getting very old and worn out. It's only a matter of time but exactly when is anyone's guess.

The private sector needs policy clarity if it is going to invest the billions necessary to meet the looming demand gap, and 2019 has been more of the same inaction.

Agreed absolutely. It's very hard for anyone to work toward getting from A to B if they don't even know where B is or how they'd know they were there.

If the future for XYZ involves aggregating wind and solar, retailing and working with someone else who does the storage then I'm sure they could make a viable business out of that but they need to know that's where they're going. Or if they're going to build the storage and someone else does the solar. Or whatever but there needs to be some sort of basis upon which to plan yes.

At the moment there appears to be a conscious plan to not plan. I mean that comment seriously and literally. It's not that there's no plan as such. There is indeed a "plan" and that "plan" is to consciously choose to not plan.

 

[sptrawler]

What I find hard to reconcile, is we have all the answers, yet those that oversee the economy and the electrical grid don't.
We are such a wasted resource.

 

[basilio]

What I find hard to reconcile, is we have all the answers, yet those that oversee the economy and the electrical grid don't.
We are such a wasted resource.

Interesting observation SP. I'm certain Smurf and his peers are up to their neck in advice to governments on what needs to be done to deal with creating a 21st century power supply that is fit for purpose.

The fact that this government steadfastly refuses to recognize that advice and insists on taking a path over a cliff is, IMO, criminally negligent.

The destruction of the original NBN proposals also springs to mind.

 

[rederob]

Interesting observation SP. I'm certain Smurf and his peers are up to their neck in advice to governments on what needs to be done to deal with creating a 21st century power supply that is fit for purpose.

A very simple first step is putting a price on carbon.
The Coalition cannot do this, however, as ideologically this is equivalent to the "carbon tax" which is anathema to them.

 

[Smurf1976]

What I find hard to reconcile, is we have all the answers, yet those that oversee the economy and the electrical grid don't.
We are such a wasted resource.

In the context of energy, the numbers themselves tell the story and it's nothing more than high school level maths beyond that point.

Where the problem arises is best explained by a practical example. Consider AGL's planned LNG import terminal in Victoria. Putting asside the CO2 issue and just looking at the business side the problem is immediately apparent:

*AGL plans to be an LNG importer and major supplier of gas into the Victorian gas system.

*The largest gas-fired power station in Victoria is owned by Origin Energy.

*The second and third largest gas-fired power stations in Victoria are both owned by Energy Australia.

*The fourth and fifth largest gas-fired power stations in Victoria are owned by Snowy Hydro, one of them sitting right next to another facility owned by AGL.

*All gas in Tasmania is sourced from Victoria so what happens there is also relevant. AGL however have nothing at all to do with gas in Tasmania, at least not once it leaves Victoria.

Now AGL can no doubt work out how much gas they're going to sell to homes and small business and they can get a pretty good estimate of the overall market there and what others will sell too, noting that others may in practice be retailing gas which AGL physically supplies.

It would however be really helpful to know what Origin, Energy Australia and Snowy were going to do with power generation given they have the potential to use huge amounts of gas, more than AGL proposes to import, or alternatively could use none at all.

The obvious solution would be to engage them in some planning and work it out. Trouble is that'll probably end up with someone in jail, perhaps literally, on the basis of collusion and dividing up the market and so on. There's also the problem that the others themselves probably don't know and would say something about government policies and uncertainty.

Now to be clear I'm not suggesting that AGL have done anything wrong or that they don't have skilled people able to come up with proper business plans and so on but it's an example of the barriers placed in the way due to an excessive focus on economic ideology. What could be a "get all the data and work it out precisely" exercise becomes a "make some assumptions and do some modelling" exercise which will never be as accurate.

The problem there is that if they build it too big then AGL's shareholders will justifiably be unhappy that the company spent more than it needed to spend on what ended up as an under-utilised facility. If they build it too small they'll find themselves in the cross hairs of government looking for someone to blame for a gas shortage. Heads you win, tails I lose.

Now realise that the same basic concept gets in the way of everything relating to all this. Things which seem so incredibly simple to a technically focused person are obstructed by rules and regulations driven by anything from economics to pure politics.

Now add in that all too often the government simply doesn't like the rational outcomes and there's another problem.

There's no particular brilliance or special abilities required to work this stuff out really. The data's ultimately in the public domain and we're talking addition and subtraction not anything complex mathematically. What is difficult though is having to guess what others will do, and knowing that that in itself is a product of politics which is anyone's guess really.

AGL wouldn't have announced closure of Torrens Island A (power station) for shutdown in 2017 if they'd known at the time that Alinta were going to shut Northern. Alinta wouldn't have shut northern at the time if they'd known that Engie were going to shut Hazelwood. Etc.

If we're going to get this right then it's not rocket science as such, just commonsense and planning really. Trouble is, planning is precisely what government hasn't wanted anyone to be doing.

 

[IFocus]

Where the problem arises is best explained by a practical example. Consider AGL's planned LNG import terminal in Victoria. Putting asside the CO2 issue and just looking at the business side the problem is immediately apparent:

Its really hard to believe we are going to import gas

 

[Smurf1976]

Its really hard to believe we are going to import gas

I generally don't like the words "boom" and "gas" in the same sentence but that's what it's looking like with 5 separate proposals now - two in NSW, two in Vic and one in SA.

The plan is to not plan.

 

[sptrawler]

Interesting observation SP. I'm certain Smurf and his peers are up to their neck in advice to governments on what needs to be done to deal with creating a 21st century power supply that is fit for purpose.

The fact that this government steadfastly refuses to recognize that advice and insists on taking a path over a cliff is, IMO, criminally negligent.

The destruction of the original NBN proposals also springs to mind.

As has been proven with the NBN, it was a waste of taxpayers money and was a perfect example of politicians playing in something they had no expertise in. The whole thing was an ego trip brain fart.
If the Government gets involved in the power grid, it should be as a last resort, or else the public will wear all the mitigating costs associated with the decommissioning of coal generation.
That will end up in tears as has happened with the NBN, the generators have taken on the responsibilty of supplying reliable electricity and also taken the profits from doing so.
It is their responsibility not the taxpayers responsibilty to bring about the orderly decommissioning of their plant.
I can understand it could be reasonable to expect the taxpayer to install storage, as the taxpayer is getting the benefit from renewables and storage is an inert component required by renewables.
What would be criminally negligent IMO, would be the Government making I'll conceived policy, on something they have no understanding of ala the NBN.
What needs to happen is the AEMO and it's technical section, to come up with a plan that incorporates transmission, generation and distribution and the orderly transition to renewables.
Then when the Government has that information, they need to structure a policy to support it and bring it about.
To have the Government make policy about something they have no technical knowledge about, ends up like the NBN, where country towns have fibre and cities still have ADSL, dumb arse policy based on social outcomes rather than a sustainable business plan.
But that's what happens, when you let politics and emotions, take over from a technical and practical approach.

 

[sptrawler]

In the context of energy, the numbers themselves tell the story and it's nothing more than high school level maths beyond that point.

Where the problem arises is best explained by a practical example. Consider AGL's planned LNG import terminal in Victoria. Putting asside the CO2 issue and just looking at the business side the problem is immediately apparent:

*AGL plans to be an LNG importer and major supplier of gas into the Victorian gas system.

*The largest gas-fired power station in Victoria is owned by Origin Energy.

*The second and third largest gas-fired power stations in Victoria are both owned by Energy Australia.

*The fourth and fifth largest gas-fired power stations in Victoria are owned by Snowy Hydro, one of them sitting right next to another facility owned by AGL.

*All gas in Tasmania is sourced from Victoria so what happens there is also relevant. AGL however have nothing at all to do with gas in Tasmania, at least not once it leaves Victoria.

Now AGL can no doubt work out how much gas they're going to sell to homes and small business and they can get a pretty good estimate of the overall market there and what others will sell too, noting that others may in practice be retailing gas which AGL physically supplies.

It would however be really helpful to know what Origin, Energy Australia and Snowy were going to do with power generation given they have the potential to use huge amounts of gas, more than AGL proposes to import, or alternatively could use none at all.

The obvious solution would be to engage them in some planning and work it out. Trouble is that'll probably end up with someone in jail, perhaps literally, on the basis of collusion and dividing up the market and so on. There's also the problem that the others themselves probably don't know and would say something about government policies and uncertainty.

Now to be clear I'm not suggesting that AGL have done anything wrong or that they don't have skilled people able to come up with proper business plans and so on but it's an example of the barriers placed in the way due to an excessive focus on economic ideology. What could be a "get all the data and work it out precisely" exercise becomes a "make some assumptions and do some modelling" exercise which will never be as accurate.

The problem there is that if they build it too big then AGL's shareholders will justifiably be unhappy that the company spent more than it needed to spend on what ended up as an under-utilised facility. If they build it too small they'll find themselves in the cross hairs of government looking for someone to blame for a gas shortage. Heads you win, tails I lose.

Now realise that the same basic concept gets in the way of everything relating to all this. Things which seem so incredibly simple to a technically focused person are obstructed by rules and regulations driven by anything from economics to pure politics.

Now add in that all too often the government simply doesn't like the rational outcomes and there's another problem.

There's no particular brilliance or special abilities required to work this stuff out really. The data's ultimately in the public domain and we're talking addition and subtraction not anything complex mathematically. What is difficult though is having to guess what others will do, and knowing that that in itself is a product of politics which is anyone's guess really.

AGL wouldn't have announced closure of Torrens Island A (power station) for shutdown in 2017 if they'd known at the time that Alinta were going to shut Northern. Alinta wouldn't have shut northern at the time if they'd known that Engie were going to shut Hazelwood. Etc.

If we're going to get this right then it's not rocket science as such, just commonsense and planning really. Trouble is, planning is precisely what government hasn't wanted anyone to be doing.

To me it reeks of the companies taking the pizz, they want to offload their coal liabilities, without taking any responsibility for the resultant system reliability issues, well that's from the outside looking in.
They install gas plant, import gas, any increase in gas price can be passed on.
Meanwhile coal mine, coal miners, coal handling, coal wear and maintenance factor comes off your bottom line. Win win.
This will end up in tears IMO, higher electricity costs in a big way, which will hurt the economy in a big way.

 

[sptrawler]

In the context of energy, the numbers themselves tell the story and it's nothing more than high school level maths beyond that point.

Where the problem arises is best explained by a practical example. Consider AGL's planned LNG import terminal in Victoria. Putting asside the CO2 issue and just looking at the business side the problem is immediately apparent:

*AGL plans to be an LNG importer and major supplier of gas into the Victorian gas system.

*The largest gas-fired power station in Victoria is owned by Origin Energy.

*The second and third largest gas-fired power stations in Victoria are both owned by Energy Australia.

*The fourth and fifth largest gas-fired power stations in Victoria are owned by Snowy Hydro, one of them sitting right next to another facility owned by AGL.

*All gas in Tasmania is sourced from Victoria so what happens there is also relevant. AGL however have nothing at all to do with gas in Tasmania, at least not once it leaves Victoria.

Now AGL can no doubt work out how much gas they're going to sell to homes and small business and they can get a pretty good estimate of the overall market there and what others will sell too, noting that others may in practice be retailing gas which AGL physically supplies.

It would however be really helpful to know what Origin, Energy Australia and Snowy were going to do with power generation given they have the potential to use huge amounts of gas, more than AGL proposes to import, or alternatively could use none at all.

The obvious solution would be to engage them in some planning and work it out. Trouble is that'll probably end up with someone in jail, perhaps literally, on the basis of collusion and dividing up the market and so on. There's also the problem that the others themselves probably don't know and would say something about government policies and uncertainty.

Now to be clear I'm not suggesting that AGL have done anything wrong or that they don't have skilled people able to come up with proper business plans and so on but it's an example of the barriers placed in the way due to an excessive focus on economic ideology. What could be a "get all the data and work it out precisely" exercise becomes a "make some assumptions and do some modelling" exercise which will never be as accurate.

The problem there is that if they build it too big then AGL's shareholders will justifiably be unhappy that the company spent more than it needed to spend on what ended up as an under-utilised facility. If they build it too small they'll find themselves in the cross hairs of government looking for someone to blame for a gas shortage. Heads you win, tails I lose.

Now realise that the same basic concept gets in the way of everything relating to all this. Things which seem so incredibly simple to a technically focused person are obstructed by rules and regulations driven by anything from economics to pure politics.

Now add in that all too often the government simply doesn't like the rational outcomes and there's another problem.

There's no particular brilliance or special abilities required to work this stuff out really. The data's ultimately in the public domain and we're talking addition and subtraction not anything complex mathematically. What is difficult though is having to guess what others will do, and knowing that that in itself is a product of politics which is anyone's guess really.

AGL wouldn't have announced closure of Torrens Island A (power station) for shutdown in 2017 if they'd known at the time that Alinta were going to shut Northern. Alinta wouldn't have shut northern at the time if they'd known that Engie were going to shut Hazelwood. Etc.

If we're going to get this right then it's not rocket science as such, just commonsense and planning really. Trouble is, planning is precisely what government hasn't wanted anyone to be doing.

Smurf, the real problem is the system was a State function, but with technology and the interconnect it in reality is becoming a Federal function and obviously it is a convoluted issue.

 

[basilio]

California seems as if it has been burning for years. In any case each year brings a darker story of uncontrollable wildfires fuelled by higher temperatures and drier conditions.

Be more than a little interesting to see the impact on the economy and the insurance industry.

Could be a lot like us...
California: wildfires ravage state as 2 million face looming blackouts – as it happened
Thousands of people have been ordered to evacuate as dry, windy conditions fuel fires across the state

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-smoke-spreads-across-san-francisco-area-live

 

[Smurf1976]

Smurf, the real problem is the system was a State function, but with technology and the interconnect it in reality is becoming a Federal function and obviously it is a convoluted issue.

I don't disagree but the problem there is that the federal government, of any persuasion, has a track record of not being good at technical things and also not being overly business savvy.

Realistically, the states, private enterprise and individuals are going to be the ones to fix (or not fix) this in practice. I say that simply looking at what's actually occurred thus far. To the extent there's any progress it's from the states or it's from local government, business or individuals, it's not from the national government.

I thus repeat my conclusion that, and I mean this with respect to all involved, those seeing this as a political issue aren't looking at it from the right perspective if the aim is to actually fix it. Approaching it from a practical (technical etc) and business (financial) perspective is going to be far more effective in practice.

Invest in those with solutions or developing them. The surest way to fix it is to make it cheaper to be non-polluting than to pollute. Money talks - nobody's going to be too keen on continuing with coal if it's cheaper to move to something else. Etc. Technology and business will bring about a fix far more effectively than politics will.

Implement solutions in your own life and support those businesses doing likewise. Vote with your wallet.

The only point I can see in banging on about politics is a political one not an environmental one. It's point scoring basically - it might change the government but it's not going to be how we fix, or don't fix, the issue. If 30+ years of that approach hasn't worked then it's unlikely it'll work anytime soon so a different approach is required which doesn't involve going around in circles be it on ASF or anywhere else.

 

[basilio]

Where global heating is taking us.

Greenland ice cap melt measured by satellites — and it's enough to cover Tasmania in almost 5m of water
In late July, polar scientist Martin Stendel was sweltering at his desk in Copenhagen as Europe suffered its worst ever heatwave.

Key points:
Greenland's ice cap is melting, and that water is draining into the ocean, contributing to sea level rise

• 
  
  
  • In July this year, it's estimated more than 30 billion tonnes of ice melted in three days
  • Australian scientists have been able to use NASA satellites to accurately weigh how much ice is melting

As temperatures climbed to more than 15 degrees Celsius above average, the meteorologist realised the record heat was about to hit the arctic.
"I looked at the forecast, and one could see that this heatwave, or this anomalous temperature, was on its way to Greenland," Dr Stendel said.
Greenland holds the second-largest reserves of fresh water on the planet, after Antarctica.
But year in, year out, the Greenland ice cap has been melting, and that water is draining into the ocean, contributing to sea level rise.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10...ers-weighed-by-australian-scientists/11630970

 

[IFocus]

Where global heating is taking us.

Greenland ice cap melt measured by satellites — and it's enough to cover Tasmania in almost 5m of water
In late July, polar scientist Martin Stendel was sweltering at his desk in Copenhagen as Europe suffered its worst ever heatwave.

Key points:
Greenland's ice cap is melting, and that water is draining into the ocean, contributing to sea level rise

• 
  
  
  • In July this year, it's estimated more than 30 billion tonnes of ice melted in three days
  • Australian scientists have been able to use NASA satellites to accurately weigh how much ice is melting

As temperatures climbed to more than 15 degrees Celsius above average, the meteorologist realised the record heat was about to hit the arctic.
"I looked at the forecast, and one could see that this heatwave, or this anomalous temperature, was on its way to Greenland," Dr Stendel said.
Greenland holds the second-largest reserves of fresh water on the planet, after Antarctica.
But year in, year out, the Greenland ice cap has been melting, and that water is draining into the ocean, contributing to sea level rise.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10...ers-weighed-by-australian-scientists/11630970

Saw that Bas more alarmest, marxist, leftestspittle, money hungry funded scientists, what about the mini ice age, fake news, nothing to see here, Blah blah news .....bit in your face those fact huh.

 

[basilio]

More reality.

Print Email Facebook Twitter More
UN chief Antonio Guterres warns Asia to quit 'addiction' to coal as climate change threatens region

The United Nations chief has warned Asia to quit its "addiction" to coal, as climate change threatens hundreds of millions of people vulnerable to rising sea levels across the region.

Key points:

• 
  
  
  • UN chief Antonio Guterres told Asia it is "lagging behind" and said the rollback of coal could help curb rising global temperatures
  • Australia is the world's biggest coal exporter
  • According to the Minerals Council of Australia, most of Australia's coal production is sold overseas, and mainly to Asia
  • The warning follows fresh research this week predicting that several Asian megacities, including Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh City and Mumbai, are at risk of extreme flooding linked to global warming

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11...ef-warns-asia-quit-addiction-to-coal/11667416

 

[basilio]

Has the climate crisis made California too dangerous to live in?
Bill McKibben
As with so many things, Californians are going first where the rest of us will follow

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...isis-made-california-too-dangerous-to-live-in

 

[SirRumpole]

11,000 Lefty Marxist scientists declare climate emergency [sarcasm for those not acquainted with the term]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11...gency-11000-scientists-sign-petition/11672776

 

[basilio]

They also spell out why they believe we are going to hell in a hand basket.
Its a long story but it can be summed up simply

If we don't move now we are stuffed.