The future of energy generation and storage

[Value Collector]

I don't think Green Peace's business plan is about investing in energy and minerals. So of course they invest zero to keep the lights on... well, beside paying the bills, the electrician, pay for the bulbs and all that.

Maybe instead of running smear campaigns they should be using their donated funds to actually invest in a solution, rather than just pointing expensive fingers.

Electricity, fuel... we all need and want them. It doesn't mean we're hypocritical to want electric and save the planet at the same time. We can have both.

It'll be cheaper for all consumers if energy comes from clean and renewable... so we all want things cheap and any survey will tell you that.

of course, but that doesn't happen over night, if we banned petrol cars tomorrow, you can bet there would be a shortage of cars in a couple of years.

I am all for investing in renewables, and new tech as you can see from my support of Tesla, but the transition needs to happen slowly, other wise you have to expect disruptions.

That and it creates more jobs, greater innovation, not pollute the air or being inefficient in mining/extracting then transport, refined, burnt etc. etc. Aren't those things what this great capitalism is all about?

So where are all these jobs? to seems to me like next to nothing is happening. people are even complaining about the Tesla battery.

And it's not a smear if those mock ads are saying the truth. Truth can be uncomfortable, and ugly, but it's no smear in and of itself.

it is a smear campaign, because we can't stop using coal tomorrow, So we need to still be investing in fossil fuel in the medium term as we slowly wean ourselves off.

If the country relies on coal, there is nothing wrong with banks loaning some money to keep the coal supply going, especially if not enough people are putting up equity in alternatives.

 

[Value Collector]

As I have pointed out before, some of the worlds cheapest and greenest electrical networks are privately owned.

Berkshire Hathaway owned electricity network sells power at half the price of the state owned system across the river, and is heading to 100% wind power.

When you set it up so investors are comfortable investing stuff gets done.

 

[luutzu]

Maybe instead of running smear campaigns they should be using their donated funds to actually invest in a solution, rather than just pointing expensive fingers.

I don't know anything about GreenPeace beside their stopping the Japanese from whale hunting for "scientific research".

of course, but that doesn't happen over night, if we banned petrol cars tomorrow, you can bet there would be a shortage of cars in a couple of years.

Who says the world need more cars? Maybe rail, trams, bicycles, feet to walk with.
No one's saying a ban should happen overnight... just maybe don't freaking subsidise those established fossil giants.

Adani got $1B in subsidies from our tax office. Other oil giants and car manufacturers get billions in subsidies per year.

There's a few bucks given to renewable. I guess Turnbull's plan for that innovation boom starts with a fizzle to spark things up.

I am all for investing in renewables, and new tech as you can see from my support of Tesla, but the transition needs to happen slowly, other wise you have to expect disruptions.

Buying a cool piece of toy can't be said to be supporting it. Right? Just buying something cool and enjoying it.

If Tesla is a clunker that would probably kill its drivers and you still risk putting money into it... that's showing support.

So where are all these jobs? to seems to me like next to nothing is happening. people are even complaining about the Tesla battery.

Saw some news where NYC got better employment figures recently because it's increasing its investment in renewables.

China seems to be employing a fair number of people rolling out its solar farms and literally trying to green the Inner Mongolian desert. That's the only place, if I heard right, that actually increase its green footprint.

That and in general, new industries hire more people. Established industries soon enough have the cash to automate, fire most of its labour force and/or know people who know people who can make laws to keep wages down in the sector. WalMart, McDonalds etc., place where an average full time worker there can't afford to live (in the US) and often have to either get food stamp and/or a second or third job.

New companies and young upstarts tend to be more focused on the tech and market dominance so they tend not to have time yet to screw their workers. So workers win, for a while.

it is a smear campaign, because we can't stop using coal tomorrow, So we need to still be investing in fossil fuel in the medium term as we slowly wean ourselves off.

If the country relies on coal, there is nothing wrong with banks loaning some money to keep the coal supply going, especially if not enough people are putting up equity in alternatives.

Don't stop using coal tomorrow, but if you subsidise and permit extraction for some 20 years... that's not helping the day after tomorrow (or it does, depends on the movie reference )

 

[luutzu]

As I have pointed out before, some of the worlds cheapest and greenest electrical networks are privately owned.

Berkshire Hathaway owned electricity network sells power at half the price of the state owned system across the river, and is heading to 100% wind power.

When you set it up so investors are comfortable investing stuff gets done.

So how do you set it up so investors get comfy?

Subsidies? Remove "red tapes" and strangling regulation that strangles freedom, capitalism, investment and save the children?

The US FCC chair is proposing to remove Net Neutrality. He also said it's for greater investment, competition and all that green goodness.

Capitalists are a bit over-rated.

 

[sptrawler]

You guys are funny, now the penny is dropping, coal isn't so bad. lol

The problem with the righteous way, it isn't always the best way, as has been proven many times.

The Chinese, didn't just buy Loy Yang B for the fun of it, they don't throw away money.
They know we are painting ourselves into a corner, and they will make plenty of money supplying base load, when we have finished whipping ourselves into a renewable catastrophe.
It is a shame we spend so much time and effort addressing our social ethos, without giving a thought to our economic survival.
We are the dumbest people on the planet.IMO

 

[SirRumpole]

They know we are painting ourselves into a corner, and they will make plenty of money supplying base load, when we have finished whipping ourselves into a renewable catastrophe.

The take up of solar pv and batteries may prove you wrong. I can see them being mandatory on new housing in a while.

 

[Wysiwyg]

The Government could return some of our tax dollars via a heavily subsidised domestic solar panel and/or battery storage scheme which would reduce demand on the existing base load. If the Gov. paid half the cost for a Powerwall, that would make a huge difference to demand issues and place Elon (Value Collector) Musk in some serious truffle.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Electricity, fuel... we all need and want them. It doesn't mean we're hypocritical to want electric and save the planet at the same time. We can have both.

Unfortunately all that will happen is the slowing of anthropomorphic planetary destruction. In the known Universe, nothing exists in the same state forever so this human process can be seen as natural as we assume to be in control.

 

[$20shoes]

Why is it the nuclear is not a discussion in Australia? To me the Gen IV reactors should be considered a real alternative. It's difficult to argue that they are a threat given their construction and that pollution is responsible for > 2000 preventable deaths per year.

Just say they're available in 2030, it give us time to plan and budget for the mid 2030s. China will be happy to help Theyre building a crap load of plants at the moment.

Fuel is plentiful. And we can make inroads into emissions outside of electricity production - one massive benefit is the output of hydrogen we can then use to make inroads into transport and industrial sectors. SA are big on hydrogen production (see CSIRO work). Given electricity generation/production only accounts for a small portion of our overall energy consumption, renewables will only ever do so much.

Fuel costs are not really a concern in plant life. The costs in running a plant are very fixed and knowable. I suppose gas is definitely the competitor and huge upfront capital costs are unpalatable. But I feel we should consider it seriously.

 

[SirRumpole]

Why is it the nuclear is not a discussion in Australia? To me the Gen IV reactors should be considered a real alternative. It's difficult to argue that they are a threat given their construction and that pollution is responsible for > 2000 preventable deaths per year.

Just say they're available in 2030, it give us time to plan and budget for the mid 2030s. China will be happy to help Theyre building a crap load of plants at the moment.

Fuel is plentiful. And we can make inroads into emissions outside of electricity production - one massive benefit is the output of hydrogen we can then use to make inroads into transport and industrial sectors. SA are big on hydrogen production (see CSIRO work). Given electricity generation/production only accounts for a small portion of our overall energy consumption, renewables will only ever do so much.

Fuel costs are not really a concern in plant life. The costs in running a plant are very fixed and knowable. I suppose gas is definitely the competitor and huge upfront capital costs are unpalatable. But I feel we should consider it seriously.

If a nuclear reactor stacks up in a cost benefit analysis against other forms of energy over it's lifetime (including decommissioning, cleaning up etc) then it should be considered. Nuclear technology like any other technology is advancing all the time. I don't think it does compete at the moment.

Personally I wouldn't trust China to build anything in this country, their standards are so low that I would be very worried about accidents , poor structural work and bad management.

 

[$20shoes]

If a nuclear reactor stacks up in a cost benefit analysis against other forms of energy over it's lifetime (including decommissioning, cleaning up etc) then it should be considered. Nuclear technology like any other technology is advancing all the time. I don't think it does compete at the moment.

Personally I wouldn't trust China to build anything in this country, their standards are so low that I would be very worried about accidents , poor structural work and bad management.

I agree on the China point. With these plants you need multi-generational expertise, so thats a concern unless we spin out a capable workforce - not out of the question with a push for students to move into Science and Engineering. But it would take a mindshift. At the moment I think its too big a leap (even putting aside a cost benefit analysis), but I would be in favour of seeing more rigorous debate in this area from industry leaders/pollies/media. I know..."good luck with that" haha

 

[Value Collector]

Who says the world need more cars?

)

It wouldn't be that we need more, it's that you need to add 1,000,000 cars to the Australian fleet each year just to maintain the number of cars we have, becasue you lose cars every day.

Same with big generation, we are losing coal plants just to natural attrition.

Adani got $1B in subsidies from our tax office.

The government earns alot of money from mining royalties, and other taxes, if they have to put in some money to kick start a 25 year revenue stream, and take a few 1000 people out of the dole queue it can be a good investment

Buying a cool piece of toy can't be said to be supporting it. Right? Just buying something cool and enjoying it.

If Tesla is a clunker that would probably kill its drivers and you still risk putting money into it... that's showing support.

Not sure what you are talking about here

Saw some news where NYC got better employment figures recently because it's increasing its investment in renewables.

As I said, where the political and social system is set up right people will make the investment.

 

[Value Collector]

Why is it the nuclear is not a discussion in Australia? To me the Gen IV reactors should be considered a real alternative. It's difficult to argue that they are a threat given their construction and that pollution is responsible for > 2000 preventable deaths per year.

Just say they're available in 2030, it give us time to plan and budget for the mid 2030s. China will be happy to help Theyre building a crap load of plants at the moment.

Fuel is plentiful. And we can make inroads into emissions outside of electricity production - one massive benefit is the output of hydrogen we can then use to make inroads into transport and industrial sectors. SA are big on hydrogen production (see CSIRO work). Given electricity generation/production only accounts for a small portion of our overall energy consumption, renewables will only ever do so much.

Fuel costs are not really a concern in plant life. The costs in running a plant are very fixed and knowable. I suppose gas is definitely the competitor and huge upfront capital costs are unpalatable. But I feel we should consider it seriously.

Nuclear is not going to happen in Australia, their is simply to much misunderstanding about it.

It would need the support of the Banks, and green peace and co would be trashing any Bank that thought about looking at it.

 

[sptrawler]

The take up of solar pv and batteries may prove you wrong. I can see them being mandatory on new housing in a while.

That would have a major effect on demand, but large system disturbances, would still be an issue. Solar/battery installations are very much a passive device, which follow the synchronous system,

 

[luutzu]

It wouldn't be that we need more, it's that you need to add 1,000,000 cars to the Australian fleet each year just to maintain the number of cars we have, becasue you lose cars every day.

Same with big generation, we are losing coal plants just to natural attrition.

The government earns alot of money from mining royalties, and other taxes, if they have to put in some money to kick start a 25 year revenue stream, and take a few 1000 people out of the dole queue it can be a good investment

Not sure what you are talking about here


As I said, where the political and social system is set up right people will make the investment.

People can't be employed on clean and renewable projects? Know what $1B, instead of being subsidised to a multibillion corporation from India, can do if it's towards a new industry like renewable?

"A lot" is relative.

Maybe taxes and royalties paid are in the billions. So that's a lot.

A billion dollar on real profit of $50 or $100B is peanuts. And as we all know, the likes of BHP and RIO don't book their real profit in Australia do they? They sell to their subsidiary in Singapore or Panama at a low margin... those then onsell to the end users at massive markup... and that's as far as I know, I'm sure they do more than that.

And that doesn't count the costs of polluting the air, the land, leaching into and spoiling them massive aquifers etc. etc.

I was saying that "supporting" a struggling business by buying its goods/services. That's supporting.

To buy a Rolex or a pink diamond then say you're supporting watch makers and struggling miners isn't the same. I mean, you do pay for the goods, but don't do so to support them so much as to just enjoy the goods from them.

 

[Value Collector]

People can't be employed on clean and renewable projects? Know what $1B, instead of being subsidised to a multibillion corporation from India, can do if it's towards a new industry like renewable?

"A lot" is relative.

Maybe taxes and royalties paid are in the billions. So that's a lot.

A billion dollar on real profit of $50 or $100B is peanuts. And as we all know, the likes of BHP and RIO don't book their real profit in Australia do they? They sell to their subsidiary in Singapore or Panama at a low margin... those then onsell to the end users at massive markup... and that's as far as I know, I'm sure they do more than that.

And that doesn't count the costs of polluting the air, the land, leaching into and spoiling them massive aquifers etc. etc.

.

The government already has and does subsidise renewable projects, it also provides incentives to mining sometimes, the big difference is the government has a vested interest in mining projects, becasue it gets royalties, so in some cases it makes sense to invest a bit to gain a long term revenue stream.

I was saying that "supporting" a struggling business by buying its goods/services. That's supporting.

To buy a Rolex or a pink diamond then say you're supporting watch makers and struggling miners isn't the same. I mean, you do pay for the goods, but don't do so to support them so much as to just enjoy the goods from them

I still have no idea what this analogy has to do with me.

 

[Smurf1976]

Why is it the nuclear is not a discussion in Australia?

Historically Victoria had the SECV as among the world's best with using low grade coal. Massive scale plants churning out cheap power and nothing could compete for base load. They were even doing it cheaper than hydro power at one point.

Tasmania had the Hydro as not just a source of cheap power but as a means of economic development as such.

NSW and Qld had their Electricity Commissions which whilst they couldn't beat Vic or Tas came pretty close.

SA, NT and WA historically didn't use enough power to be overly worried about and whilst not as cheap as the other states ETSA and SECWA certainly weren't high cost operations by any means in terms of bulk generation. Distribution costs hit them pretty hard due to the low population density but so far as generation was concerned they did it pretty cheaply by global standards. NT always had lack of scale as a problem but did pretty well all things considered.

Plus of course the Snowy providing additional power to NSW and Vic.

We had the third cheapest electricity in the developed world back then as a national average and nuclear simply wasn't competitive. Vic, NSW and Tas all looked at it and went as far as identifying suitable sites to build it but concluded that continuing with coal or hydro development was cheaper at the time.

That's all history but it's worth noting that most of the power we use today still comes from power stations designed and built by the former state utilities so it's still of relevance today and will be for at least another 3 decades.

I could be wrong but I doubt that the private sector would be interested in building nuclear generation in Australia. We're talking about a very long lead time project, a lot of money put in that doesn't earn a cent in revenue for at least the first decade, and then a fairly low rate of return after that with a very large liability in the event of a mishap. Broadly speaking only governments even contemplate that sort of thing.

I'm not totally opposed to the concept if everything's done right but I don't see it as a "silver bullet". It works certainly but it has never been a cheap technology in countries with tight regulations and local availability of alternative resources. Hence most nuclear generation built in recent decades has been either for political / strategic / military reasons, in countries without viable local alternatives or in places with cheap labour. None of those apply in Australia at present.

All that said, it wouldn't surprise me to see a government propose building nuclear power generation to come online in the mid-2030's and located in either NSW or Vic. Politics is against that now but a few blackouts would quite likely change that. Time is running short though - it's late 2017 now so if we want to replace the many coal-fired plants likely to close in the 2030's with nuclear then we need to get moving. 18 years from 2017 to 2035 isn't a long time with this sort of stuff (seriously, 18 years isn't long and that's part of the problem since many do actually think that's a long time. With smartphones maybe it is but with power generation it's not at all long).

 

[Smurf1976]

As I have pointed out before, some of the worlds cheapest and greenest electrical networks are privately owned.

I don't doubt for a moment that private enterprise could do it.

As one example AGL ran the gas supply in Sydney for over 150 years without much drama. Costs were kept down and they built the entire thing from scratch as a for-profit company. Their prices weren't expensive.

Now there's competition for the supply of gas however. Long story short you won't see anyone offering it anywhere near as cheaply as AGL's monopoly did in the past. Faced with competition and the need to offer competitive pricing AGL itself now charges 89% more in real terms (inflation adjusted) for gas in Sydney than it did 30 years ago in 1987.

There's the "competition equals lower prices" myth blown to pieces right there and it's the same nationally for both gas and electricity so far as residential and small business consumers are concerned.

Prices up 20% for electricity in several states this year for households. Here in Tas there's no competition, no choice of supplier, so residential prices went up 2% and small business prices were cut in nominal terms.

Economists will fall of their seat reading that one but it makes perfectly good sense to those on the technical side of it all. If you're running one system where scale is key and with most costs incurred during construction rather than operation then splitting it up, having multiple operators of physical assets and even more wanting to put their name on your bill never was going to result in lower prices. There will be some benefits of competition yes but they're blown out of the water but the higher costs due to loss of scale.

Alinta, AGL and the SA Government are all building (or have just built in the case of government) new generation in SA but not one of those plants is optimally efficient either technically or economically. A smart person would get the engineers of all 3, plus those from every other company who owns or is planning to build significant power generation, in the same room and coming up with a proper plan that is efficient and cheap. Trouble is the ACCC would have the CEO's in prison if they did that.

There's an inherent conflict between the economic ideology of competition versus trying to get the best outcome technically (which also minimises costs). Hence why competition has not in practice delivered lower prices - it creates an incentive to be more efficient but imposes serious technical inefficiencies in the process of doing so. At best the various companies will find ways to offset part of the costs imposed but none of them have got back to neutral on that one.

A single private company without such restrictions could do it reliably and cheaply for sure as could a well run government utility. Ownership is not the problem - industry structure and the triumph of economic theory over sound engineering is the problem.

We had the third cheapest electricity in the OECD with the state run utilities and that came with first rate engineering by any definition. Countless achievements at the time which others globally sought to replicate. Canada and NZ with their large hydro resources were the only ones doing it cheaper than Australia although for the record if Tasmania had been a separate country then it would have been #1 on that list for low costs (and would also have been #1 on the list for highest per capita consumption globally and that's no coincidence - scale is critical to minimising cost)

55 years after it was built Catagunya is still among the highest pre-stressed dams in the world today. It was the highest when built, the whole thing is a very different design to most dams being anchored to the ground via internal cables and being very light weight in terms of materials, and has stood the test of time. 30 years later Hydro Tas did the impossible and put the spillway straight down the face of a new rockfill dam - something which gained international attention and a few awards at the time and which a few others have since copied. Hydro Tas still sells its engineering expertise on a consultancy basis both nationally and internationally today.

The SECV was pretty proud of the fact that Hazelwood churned out power from coal at a cost no higher than hydro which was until that time always the cheapest way. Tasmania would have preferred they hadn't managed to do it of course but it illustrates the point that cost was always a key focus. 20 years later and they had Loy Yang up and running with generators 150% larger than Hazelwood's and a design that was directly copied by others (a private utility in the US bought the plans and replicated the whole thing).

The rest of the developed world was trying to work out the quickest way to cut reliance on oil circa 1980. In due course it was realised internationally that SECWA had already done it whilst others were still coming to grips with the problem. Power stations that could not just burn coal, oil or gas in the same plant but switch between them whilst remaining fully operational and even burn multiple fuels in the same generating units all at once if they wanted to. More world class engineering and importantly it was done specifically as a means of minimising costs.

And so on. There wasn't a problem until politicians decided there was a need for "reform". Ideology took over and now we've got among the most expensive power on earth, expensive gas too, increasing reliance on diesel-fired plant and an aging fleet of thermal power stations (coal, gas) that would normally be found only in poorer countries who used to buy second hand equipment from Australia and elsewhere because they couldn't afford the latest things.

Ownership isn't the problem, public or private it can be done well. Just keep the ideologically driven politicians out of the way.

 

[luutzu]

The government already has and does subsidise renewable projects, it also provides incentives to mining sometimes, the big difference is the government has a vested interest in mining projects, becasue it gets royalties, so in some cases it makes sense to invest a bit to gain a long term revenue stream.



I still have no idea what this analogy has to do with me.

The amount the gov't put towards renewables are minuscule compare to what they give to fossil corporate giants. And it's not because coal or fossil fuel return more royalties or tax, more to do with political influence.

Just saw Robert Reich's new documentary - Saving Capitalism. ExxonMobil and the likes get about $4Billion in tax subsidies per year. That's on their profit of some $40B.

How many jobs does an oil rig or a pipeline need? Even at the construction phase. And if those big oil even have a half decent tax advisor, how much profit do you think they can hide and offshore?

Again, if there's an oil spill, an accident, or just plain old hurricane passing through and spreading all the toxic they stored in their ponds... who's going to pay for it?

The BP disaster costs how many jobs in fisheries and clean up? How many jobs in tourism? The taxpayers pay for it first, the residents and wildlife next, then after a couple of years in and out of court BP got fined the equivalent of a quarter's profit spread over a decade or so.

Capitalism and all that entrepreneurial stuff is great. Just that when a corporation gets to a certain size, they will push their weight around and stop being productive or progressive. Then start to hinder innovation and progress that affect their monopolies and well-oiled operation. That's just natural.

So while it's all fine and good for gov't to subsidise and nurture industry, the focus should be on smaller operators and in new industry. The big boys have enough profit to take care of themselves.

That would ensure less political influence/corruption, increase democratic rule as the captains don't control the people's representatives.


So take coal mining. OK, it create a few thousand jobs in mining. Great. So would solar or wind projects. For every dollar invested, new industries tend to employ more people... more workers, more taxes to the coffer. That and less risk of black lung disease where the taxpayers will ultimately be paying for down the line.

It's fine that capitalists and business managers just think about their own corporation's bottom line. You'd expect political leaders to think longer terms... and they can't do that if their career are made or end at the whim of those of massive wealth and what it can buy.

 

[SirRumpole]

Ownership isn't the problem, public or private it can be done well. Just keep the ideologically driven politicians out of the way.

I think that the main ideology was that some politicians thought that they could a. get lots of cash for power stations and networks and b. shift the responsibility for electricity to someone else.

As it was the public blamed the politicians anyway when things went wrong, but most of those responsible like Kennett and Baird had already jumped ship.